Skip to main content

Security report for fritz-kola.com

fritz-kola · Retail · Germany

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Fritz-kola is an independent German beverage company established in 2003, specializing in cola and related products. The website reflects a mature brand with consistent branding and a clear market position as an alternative cola provider. The technical infrastructure includes modern consent management via Usercentrics, analytics through Google Analytics and Plausible, and error monitoring with Sentry, indicating a digitally mature setup. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections, though some security headers are missing and no explicit security or privacy policies are found in the analyzed content. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but could improve privacy transparency and security header implementation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching fritz-kola.com

This scan found 20 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
85
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
76

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Fritz-kola operates in the retail beverage sector targeting general consumers interested in independent cola brands. The business model focuses on product sales and brand marketing. The domain age and registrar information align well with the company's founding date, supporting legitimacy. The company leverages third-party services for consent management and analytics, indicating a balanced approach to user data and marketing. No direct contact or legal information was found, which could be improved to enhance business credibility. The social media presence on major platforms supports brand engagement and marketing efforts.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses clientTransferProhibited status on the domain, which are positive security indicators. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are published, limiting transparency in security management. The use of Usercentrics for consent management shows GDPR awareness but the lack of a visible privacy policy is a compliance gap. No suspicious or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a clear and comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the website footer or main navigation.
  2. Implement and verify security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  4. Provide explicit incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
fritz-kola
Description
an old vw van, a desire for independence and a simple idea – it can be done better. that’s all it took to get started.
Key services
Beverage production and sales, Brand marketing
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Usercentrics Consent Management, Google Analytics, Sentry
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Plausible Analytics, Sentry
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Plausible Analytics, Sentry
Marketing tools
Usercentrics Consent Management
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern consent management via Usercentrics
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in the provided content
  3. No direct contact information (email, phone, address) found in the analyzed HTML snippet
  4. Uses Google Analytics and Plausible for analytics, indicating mixed tracking approaches
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  6. No visible security incident response contacts
  7. Website is well-branded and professionally designed
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript stack with Usercentrics for consent management, Google Analytics and Plausible for analytics, and Sentry for error monitoring. The domain is registered with InterNetX GmbH, a reputable German registrar, and uses multiple ns14.net name servers. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO meta tags. Performance is moderate with preconnect and preload hints for external resources. However, some accessibility features appear basic and could be enhanced. The lack of CMS identification suggests a custom or proprietary platform. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from improved security headers and privacy documentation.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with fritz-kola.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review fritz-kola.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.